9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that M/s.Glory Hitech Ltd. and M/s.Countech Systems were engaged in the manufacture of currency counting machines during the impugned period. These appellants supplied the entire manufactured quantity to M/s.Jay Enn India (P) Ltd. except for the period 1997-98. The appellants were selling these machines to the trading company @ Rs. 60,000/- upto 31.3.1997 and from @ Rs. 40,000/- per machine and further trading company was selling these machines to banks for price ranging from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,23,000/-. It was alleged against the appellants that for the period March, 1997 to June, 2000 that the trading company and the appellants are related person under section 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by one person to another person the same cannot be treated as related person in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kanchan Industries (supra). He further submits that the price charged from the bank cannot be treated as related persons as the appellant is not providing any service to the banks such as warranty, installation, commissioning, testing, after sale services, maintenance, etc. These expenses are borne by the trading company. Therefore, the higher price was charged from the bank as consideration for the services were coupled with the price charged for the machines. He further submits that there is no charge of undervaluation of the products supplied to the trading company, therefore, the extended period of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants and the trading company are not related to each other in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. While determining the term 'related person' this Tribunal has examined the issue in the case of Reliance Industries Products (supra) and observed as under; The three conditions are to be satisfied before it can be inferred their existing relationship namely, (i) there should be mutuality of interest, (ii) alleged related person should be related to the assessee as per Section 4(4)(e) even in the Act and (iii) importantly the price charged from the related person was not the normal price but a price lower than the normal price and because of extra commercial consideration, the price charged was less than the normal value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the appellants are selling the goods to the trading company at a agreed price an no additional benefit has been provided by the appellants to trading company. On the other hand while the goods were sold by the trading company to various banks, the additional benefits were given on the goods such as warranty, installation, commissioning, testing, after sale services, maintenance, etc. The price charged by the trading company includes these services charges, their profit and cost alongwith machines, in that circumstance, it cannot be said that the price of trading company is the influenced price of the goods sold by the appellant. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant and the trading company are not related to each other. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
